Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:36:09 07/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2002 at 06:25:57, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On July 08, 2002 at 02:28:03, Slater Wold wrote: > >>On July 08, 2002 at 00:32:42, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On July 06, 2002 at 20:15:06, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I suspect that search may see that the right move help to push the opponent king >>>>>closer to the corner relative to the wrong moves and it may be enough. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>Yes, that looks like the best thing to try and work on, doesn't it? >>>> >>>>If not, can I ask two questions?: >>>>1)What should be done during the near future to push computer elo forward as >>>>much as possible? >>>>2)If Deeper blue was really much stronger than todays tops, what was that due >>>>to? Better long-term planning? Seeing deeper? >>>>S.Taylor >>> >>> >>>Huge speed. >>> >>>It was doing most things worse than the best micro programs, but it was doing it >>>so fast that it was eventually stronger. >>> >>>Hum... Let me rephrase for the sensitive people out there. There was nothing >>>Deep Blue did better than the best micro programs. But it was so fast that it >>>allowed it to hide its defficiencies. >>> >>>Shit. That's not very diplomatic either. Let's try again: Deep Blue was build >>>around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that >>>nobody noticed until their creators published their paper. >>> >>>Oops... OK, once again: >>> >>>Bob likes Deep Blue a lot, and that should be a reason good enough to convince >>>you that it was well designed. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe ;-) >> >>I too am a DB fan. Just like Bob. >> >>But I actually agree with you here. I don't think DB did anything >>*spectacular*. >> >>But I also know that Program X will be a _LOT_ stronger on hardware 100,000x >>times faster than anyone else has. No matter how horrible the software side is. > >Sheesh, you guys! Of course they did something spectacular! But it's the >software/hardware package that plays chess, not just the software alone! And >they didn't buy the hardware around the corner, as you do with your PC. They >designed it! > >It's obvious that you guys seem to honour work in the software more than work in >the hardware. Adding feature X in the software is something great, but designing >DB's hardware which was Y time faster (Y being 200 and more) is "just faster >hardware". A bit unfair. :) > >Sargon OOhhhhh... a good "counterpoint". But it will fall on deaf ears, I predict. After all, DB was inferior in every way except for speed and results. And we all know results don't mean a thing.. it is _how_ you get those results that count... At least to some, apparently...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.